Impact of scarce strategic resources

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solomyr
i hope i don't jinx myself, but i haven't had any of these problems. or at least i haven't noticed them. even in my most recent game (Americans, stand size, 8 civs, regent) i had plenty of resources. of course, i had killed off the persians, japanese and helped wipe out the germans for the gult of resouces i had when the game ended. altough, i must admit, it has seemed like all the other civs would like one of my resources...but they don't seem to like it when i trade them it. in some of my older games, civs didn't accept my offer to trade coal or oil...of course, i had crushed them down to a few cities

anyways, i like the idea of having each source only supply X number of cities...has anyone looked? is this possible?

No, and it's probably not likely to either, at least not in the near future. That will no doubt require a fair amount of rewriting in the code. It seems a much more realistic way of doing it though, at least IMO, and would probably lead to some interesting trade negotiations.

[Dinkeldog]

I've noticed also that coal is frequently the most scarce resource for me. Aluminum, oil, and uranium all seem to be everywhere by comparison.

The cost that the AI charges for its resources seem to increase as my power increases. It's kind of like the AI wants me to share my wealth with them. How I deal with it now is that I don't try to lump together trades. I don't offer fur, coal, Military Tradition and gold/turn for one of their resources. Instead, I offer them furs and get what I can for it. Then I offer them coal (assuming I've decided they deserve coal). Then I offer Military Tradition. Then I offer them my map as a gift. If any of those aren't getting me anything significant, I give them as gifts to improve their opinion of me. Then I look at what they want for their luxury. It's generally toned down a bit. If they still want something stupid, I'll give them gold + gold/turn. If they won't settle for that, I do without for a few turns and come back later.

I've tried flipping the order as well. First I'll give them some huge amount of gold/turn for their item and then sell them my resources/tech piecemeal and get my gold/turn back. It doesn't seem to work quite as well as the first option, though.

[bogatir]

I don’t have a problem with the implementation of strategic resources. The system seems to do pretty much what it’s intended to do – force interaction between the various civs for very important resources. If the scarcity (or location) of a particular resource screws up my grand plan, well, so be it. A game that simply turned into a sprint down the technology tree would be boring. Strategic resources throw a wrench in the gears every now and then, which IMHO is a good thing.

Could there be a better implementation of strategic resources? Maybe, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t given it as much thought as the guys at Firaxis did. Besides, the idea of changing Civ3 game mechanics to enhance ‘realism’ doesn’t float very far. I mean, heck, early in the game it takes your little band of warriors 50 years just to march to the next city. By the 17th century, your army covers the same ground in 5 years that Marlborough covered in 5 weeks. The Romans took a few years, not a century, to build the Coliseum, etc.

There are complex game models at work in Civ3 to be sure, but resource/luxury implementation isn’t one of them. The system as is does what it’s designed to do, I think, in that it drives trade and conflict.

By the way, in my current game (which triggered my curiosity to begin with), I’ve discovered a third coal tile. It’s sitting UNDER a Russian city that just flipped to join my culturally superior Aztec Democratic Warm-Fuzzydom.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the AI build a city on top of a critical resource – long before that resource appears on the map. Do you guys think it’s just blind, doo-dah luck – or does the AI cheat on this one?

Cheers.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bogatir
There are complex game models at work in Civ3 to be sure, but resource/luxury implementation isn’t one of them. The system as is does what it’s designed to do, I think, in that it drives trade and conflict.

But the trade aspect could have had a lot more to it. As it stands now, once I've found my source of Iron, it pretty much loses it's trading value, especially if the other civ has one as well. Done in a more realistic way, I might have to continually negotiate for a particular commodity in order run my empire at full capacity.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the AI build a city on top of a critical resource – long before that resource appears on the map. Do you guys think it’s just blind, doo-dah luck – or does the AI cheat on this one?

There seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in that direction, that's for sure. No hard evidence that I know of yet though.

[Quokka]

In answer to Willem's to idea of a resource supplying x cities I had this idea about the handling of resources.


Resources
Have the resources graded by size of the deposit and type of deposit. Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge for sizes and Alluvial and Subterranean for type.
Sizes last for certain amounts of time.
Tiny 0-20 turns
Small 25-50 turns
Medium 60-100 turns
Large 120-150 turns
Huge 180-250 turns
Then you would have a rough idea of how long they are going to last. It would also make the trading more real. If you only have 2 tiny sources of Iron are you going to hook them both up and trade one or hold it in reserve? Iron, Coal, Oil, Aluminium, Saltpeter and Uranium should be covered this way. Horses are self replenishing and so is Rubber if it remains forested. If you cut down the forest the resource should disappear, until the discovery of Synthetic Fibers, which should give Rubber and Oil as untradeable resources, only usable by your Civ. You could however trade the natural resource after this if there is any left.
Alluvial deposits are those on the surface and would be those that you can see when the required tech is discovered. They would be limited to Medium size and below.
After discovering Electronics assaying techniques are improved and Subterranean deposits become visible and can be of any size.
Iron, Coal, Oil, Aluminium and Uranium would have both types of deposits.
Luxury Resources that are contaminated by Nuclear Pollution should be destroyed. Even after the workers clean it up would you buy wine from there?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Quokka

Sizes last for certain amounts of time.
Tiny 0-20 turns
Small 25-50 turns
Medium 60-100 turns
Large 120-150 turns
Huge 180-250 turns
Then you would have a rough idea of how long they are going to last.

Nah, then there'd be no element of surprise. It adds a bit of excitement if your only source of Iron just suddenly disappears, especially if you are in the middle of a war.

[bogatir]

In order to model strategic resources at a greater detail level, you’re looking at adding a lot more complexity to the system. A game mechanic that allows a resource to supply ‘x’ cities isn’t any less abstract than the current system.

To support a 'detailed' model, the game would have to specifically quantify the resource (not necessarily to the player, mind you), and then expend that resource at an item-by-item rate for the production of your strategic assets. Why should I exhaust a strategic source of aluminum (or whatever) when I’m not building anything that needs it? This approach considers that strategic resource tiles represent resources in ‘strategic’ quantities – simple consumer use of the same resource as technology advances is always assumed to be below the ‘simulation horizon’. ("Hey, how come the Aztecs have aluminum beer cans and all we have are these clay pots?!!")

A game that goes that far is a different game altogether. There is an element of economic bean-counting in Civ3, but that’s not the essence of the game. As they stand, strategic resources are aimed at giving you a simple problem – say, you need oil – and letting you devise the complex solution (or build a lot of cavalry and go stomp the guy who has the oil).

Cheers.

[Quokka]

Willem:
Very true it is surprising but I bet thats not the word you use when it actually happens. I wouldn't want to be given the exact size that would be too predictable, but even ancient cultures knew when they found alot or a little of the resource. There should be some size determination. One gold nugget doesn't make a Gold Rush but you have found gold. Besides if its your only source of Iron you are going to have it hooked up and be using it anyway, and it may still run out in the middle of the war. It would get around the random factor now. I really hate the random numbers in this game. As it is if the resource does deplete then its possible to reload and the chances are that it won't deplete. If the deposit size was determined when it was discovered then the usage would determine the length of time before it depleted and there could be no reloading to get around it.

Bogatir:
I don't think it would complicate the resource model too much. If you traded the resource then the usage rate would be the same as you were building with it. I think that the usage of the resource when not actually building any unit requiring it could be covered under R&D or training or maintenance or a number of ideas down that path. All of these use strategic quantities equal to or greater than the actual build cost.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bogatir
As they stand, strategic resources are aimed at giving you a simple problem – say, you need oil – and letting you devise the complex solution (or build a lot of cavalry and go stomp the guy who has the oil).

Well that's sort of my point, with the the current system the solution is not all that complex. This "one resource fits all" approach narrows the opportunities for wheeling and dealing that the game is trying to introduce. Granted that an item by item accounting of the supply would be far to cumbersome to be workable, but on the other hand a single resource for an entire empire strikes me as extremely simplistic. After all, to a large extent our world civilization has always been constrained by the dual limitations of supply and demand. It would seem reasonable to me that a game simulating historical evolution would do the same.

[bogatir]

No argument there. The resource mechanic is really simple. The trick is that anything much more complicated wouldn’t be a tweak, it would be a new game -- because one game mechanic can't be altered without impacting a lot of other systems.

The entire resource/luxury set of mechanics would have to be redesigned – after all, if I’m going to design more complexity into the resource system, then I’ve got to figure that none of my target audience is going to be very happy with the luxury system either. Luxuries like wines or furs showing up in only one ‘cluster’ of tiles is an all too frequent occurrence, and doesn’t even vaguely approach reality. But the mechanic serves its purpose in the game nonetheless.

A lot of Civ3’s mechanics are, like resources, pretty basic in nature. It’s their interaction with other mechanics that drive the game. For instance, I read in another thread someone lamenting that the global warming mechanic didn’t take into account how much jungle had been cleared, or how many forest tiles had been cleared/planted. Good heavens. Global warming is designed as a control against sloppiness in industrialization and population management. It’s not a planetary-scale ecological subsystem designed to boost membership in Greenpeace.

Individual game mechanics can only accomplish so much before they begin to become a distraction (to those of us with short attention spans, at least ) . For me, the fun of facing scarce resources is scheming (pretty quickly) to get what I need, not figuring out whether I need 5 tons or 7 tons of chromium to produce the stainless steel for my new battleship.

No doubt, a little more differentiation or diversification in the current resource system would increase opportunities for and complexity of civ interactions. But the same thing can be said about many of the game’s mechanics. Staying on the ‘simple’ end of the design spectrum, I suppose, makes 6050 years pass a little more quickly.

Cheers.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bogatir
No argument there. The resource mechanic is really simple. The trick is that anything much more complicated wouldn’t be a tweak, it would be a new game -- because one game mechanic can't be altered without impacting a lot of other systems.

The entire resource/luxury set of mechanics would have to be redesigned – after all, if I’m going to design more complexity into the resource system, then I’ve got to figure that none of my target audience is going to be very happy with the luxury system either. Luxuries like wines or furs showing up in only one ‘cluster’ of tiles is an all too frequent occurrence, and doesn’t even vaguely approach reality. But the mechanic serves its purpose in the game nonetheless.

A lot of Civ3’s mechanics are, like resources, pretty basic in nature. It’s their interaction with other mechanics that drive the game. For instance, I read in another thread someone lamenting that the global warming mechanic didn’t take into account how much jungle had been cleared, or how many forest tiles had been cleared/planted. Good heavens. Global warming is designed as a control against sloppiness in industrialization and population management. It’s not a planetary-scale ecological subsystem designed to boost membership in Greenpeace.

Individual game mechanics can only accomplish so much before they begin to become a distraction (to those of us with short attention spans, at least ) . For me, the fun of facing scarce resources is scheming (pretty quickly) to get what I need, not figuring out whether I need 5 tons or 7 tons of chromium to produce the stainless steel for my new battleship.

No doubt, a little more differentiation or diversification in the current resource system would increase opportunities for and complexity of civ interactions. But the same thing can be said about many of the game’s mechanics. Staying on the ‘simple’ end of the design spectrum, I suppose, makes 6050 years pass a little more quickly.

Cheers.

Yes I understand what you're saying, and I realize that there won't be any major changes made in the resource system. And I don't mind it as it is frankly, I think it's an improvement overall. It adds a dynamic that for the most part I enjoy. However it can also be very discouraging when your empire's fortunes rests on a single resource that is virtually impossible to obtain at times. There have been a few games when I've ended up with a large continent almost devoid of valuable resources and I felt that my only recourse was to start a new game and hope for better luck next time. If the concept would have been handled differently however, I could have avoided the frustration of spending a fair chunk of time on a dead end game.

[bogatir]

That’s the ticket. One of the things I was curious about in starting this thread was whether or not players get into a situation of very scarce resouces that causes a game to go ‘dead-end’.

In my two-coal game, I prepared the turn before finishing research on Steam Power to start building my rail net. I had workers lined up all across the Aztec Republic, ready to lay down the iron rails. Then, research finished, I was ready to build. But my workers didn’t give me the ‘Build Railroad’ option.

Since a bunch of my early territory was bisected by a big mountain range, I felt sure I would have at least one coal tile pop up on my already-considerable road net. But I checked a city screen and, nope, no coal in the strategic resources list. So I started looking around the map for coal.

And at first, I didn’t find any. That was a moment of "did I just waste a bunch of time?" panic. I eventually found the two coal tiles, both cleverly disguised in jungle terrain (which makes that little black coal blob very hard to spot for us old guys). But for a while, I was really starting to get aggravated about playing for hours and then not being able to industrialize.

As another example from my two-coal game, the AI’s Chinese civ covers an entire small continent, separated from all of the other civs which share a much bigger continent. There are no horses or coal on their continent, and by the time they achieved a sea-faring capability, the rest of the world was pretty much settled. They have a fairly big empire, but they’re a non-factor because they were strategic resource starved for two thirds of the game.

Cheers.

[opaque]

One of the things I was curious about in starting this thread was whether or not players get into a situation of very scarce resouces that causes a game to go ‘dead-end’.

I have yet to play a game with very scarce resources and although I can see why people would complain about it, I would find it quite an intense challenge to fight for the resources. This is probably the reason I don't find the more random combat results a problem and I have never reloaded after getting a bad starting position or a bad goody hut result. I like this challenge in games like Civ 3.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bogatir
That’s the ticket. One of the things I was curious about in starting this thread was whether or not players get into a situation of very scarce resouces that causes a game to go ‘dead-end’.

I guess it's a question of how much patience the player has when it comes to this sort of situation. At the moment I don't have very much. In fact I have little patience for a lousy start of any kind. If I play a few turns only to discover that my position sucks, I just start a new game. I scrap more games than I actually play, so I find it rather annoying when I finally end up with a good map, only to find that there's no resources in the area. Maybe if I had continued I would have had a resource pop up in my territory, or made friendly with some other civ for it, but I just haven't had the patience to wait it out. I want my Iron and I want it NOW! I don't mind sending some Worker half way across the continent, and having to defend it against all odds, as long as I have some source in my area.

[opaque]

Willem, have you tried setting all your resources to maximum appearance on the map?